Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fixing the Internet for Games

gafferongames.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: Fixing the Internet for Games

#91

Post by gafferongames »

kbenson wrote: post #90
gafferongames wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as the CEO, I would think twice about working with any customer who intends to pass the cost on to the player.

Why? If it's up front, and it allows two classes of players and clearly defines them (and allows people to sort by them for games), what'st the problems that would make you think twice? I can see some problems with the model, where it might not allow for a more evenly distributed set of revenue from players and certain players would get the benefit without the cost by having a very good and well connected and routed…

Pay to win is a serious concern. There’s also the fact that not everybody gets improvement. For some players, some of the time, their default route is just fine. Would be a shame to charge those players $5 a month for something that gives them no benefit.

Re: Fixing the Internet for Games

#92

Post by kbenson »

gafferongames wrote: post #91
kbenson wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If it's up front, and it allows two classes of players and clearly defines them (and allows people to sort by them for games), what'st the problems that would make you think twice? I can see some problems with the model, where it might not allow for a more evenly distributed set of revenue from players and certain players would get the benefit without the cost by having a very good and well connected and routed…

Pay to win is a serious concern. There’s also the fact that not everybody gets improvement. For some players, some of the time, their default route is just fine. Would be a shame to charge those players $5 a month for something that gives them no benefit.

Well, there's plenty of payment options for games that include multiple things, some of which many people never find a use for. What use is a novelty model/skin that's part of a paid package that is never utilized?

As part of a paid account I think it at least has utility for a large percentage of people, and may provide more or less useful as their play mode changes or they play on different servers or with different people over time.

I think a $5 a month plan that included your service, plus a visual indicator or something on the name or player that's customizable, plus early access to some content such as maps, would be a good sell. Some people might not take advantage of the player customization, some might never play the maps early because their group includes people that aren't paying, and some people might not have a use for the better networking, but all together, it's an interesting package.

Re: Fixing the Internet for Games

#93

Post by tree123 »

Matheus28 wrote: post #88
milesward wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanna build your game on the same network Stadia uses? Https://cloud.google.com

And pay an obscenely high amount of money for bandwidth? Those providers all charge at least $0.05/GB; you can get bandwidth for a tenth of that elsewhere. Games use a lot of bandwidth at scale (agar.io would use a couple of PB a month). For F2P games, server costs eat a lot of revenue if you use those premium providers.

Why did you stop making io games? Where did you learn multiplayer game development?

Re: Fixing the Internet for Games

#94

Post by simonsays2 »

kaoD wrote: post #63
simonsays2 wrote: post #57

This sort of stuff has been around for a while, it helps some, but realistically your game needs to be designed from the ground up with latency and stutter in mind. If you do this, you wont need the complexity and expense of this sort of thing. First you need client side prediction and smoothing. Next, you must design your game so it follows certain very strict rules about player interaction. These rules allow the pl…

Are you teaching game networking to Glenn Fiedler? You probably learnt it from him, or someone who read his articles! Now seriously: client side prediction is not magic and it always introduces its own problems, like getting killed after getting into cover (especially in low TTK shooters) or the opposite: bullets not registering when if they hit in your screen. Client side prediction is sleight of hand. It will never…

Fuck yeah, I'm trying to warn people to go it right and not wait for a magic bullet that will never come.

Re: Fixing the Internet for Games

#95

Post by politician »

kbenson wrote: post #92
gafferongames wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay to win is a serious concern. There’s also the fact that not everybody gets improvement. For some players, some of the time, their default route is just fine. Would be a shame to charge those players $5 a month for something that gives them no benefit.

Well, there's plenty of payment options for games that include multiple things, some of which many people never find a use for. What use is a novelty model/skin that's part of a paid package that is never utilized? As part of a paid account I think it at least has utility for a large percentage of people, and may provide more or less useful as their play mode changes or they play on different servers or with differen…

Explicitly passing on fees to the customer for a capability that may (or may not) help them see lower latency erodes trust and makes NN look like an insurance scam. As mentioned, not all users will definitely see performance improvements, so your proposed $5/mo is more of an insurance policy than a defined capability -- it could even be pure profit (who would know?)!

The more honest way to do it would be to convert funds to "latency improvement" tokens that trickle out of customers' accounts when used to improve performance, and provide the user with analytics of that improved performance. (NN could take note here and manage this token bucket feature themselves in a 3-way arrangement between customer, vendor, and NN that maintains NN's B2B focus. Happy to explain more if you want to spitball the idea).

I really was joking when I said that players could find latency improvement tokens in lootboxes.

Re: Fixing the Internet for Games

#96

Post by kbenson »

politician wrote: post #95
kbenson wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there's plenty of payment options for games that include multiple things, some of which many people never find a use for. What use is a novelty model/skin that's part of a paid package that is never utilized? As part of a paid account I think it at least has utility for a large percentage of people, and may provide more or less useful as their play mode changes or they play on different servers or with differen…

Explicitly passing on fees to the customer for a capability that may (or may not) help them see lower latency erodes trust and makes NN look like an insurance scam. As mentioned, not all users will definitely see performance improvements, so your proposed $5/mo is more of an insurance policy than a defined capability -- it could even be pure profit (who would know?)! The more honest way to do it would be to convert f…

> Explicitly passing on fees to the customer for a capability that may (or may not) help them see lower latency erodes trust and makes NN look like an insurance scam. As mentioned, not all users will definitely see performance improvements, so your proposed $5/mo is more of an insurance policy than a defined capability -- it could even be pure profit (who would know?)!

Plenty of things are offered as value-added services for products all the time. Sometimes you get a free skin you might never use, or a coupon on something else you'll never buy. Players are free to buy a similar service themselves through other providers, but as part of multiple incentives for pay, I don't think it's that bad, and really, when it comes to the current status quo of paying for products with advertising or with cosmetic enhancements that are designed to have no upper limit in purchasing amount and advertised in a way to make children go crazy over them, I'm happy if the payment alternatives include more options that don't include that, even if they aren't ideal in some other aspects.

Re: Fixing the Internet for Games

#97

Post by politician »

kbenson wrote: post #96
politician wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explicitly passing on fees to the customer for a capability that may (or may not) help them see lower latency erodes trust and makes NN look like an insurance scam. As mentioned, not all users will definitely see performance improvements, so your proposed $5/mo is more of an insurance policy than a defined capability -- it could even be pure profit (who would know?)! The more honest way to do it would be to convert f…

> Explicitly passing on fees to the customer for a capability that may (or may not) help them see lower latency erodes trust and makes NN look like an insurance scam. As mentioned, not all users will definitely see performance improvements, so your proposed $5/mo is more of an insurance policy than a defined capability -- it could even be pure profit (who would know?)! Plenty of things are offered as value-added serv…

It would be reasonable position if we were talking about a free market, and not a market captured by last mile ISPs operating a cartel on bandwidth supported and enabled by their regulators.

The near future involves last-mile ISPs openly selling $40/mo bundles for Facebook, Amazon, and Google. In that environment, flat fees for sometimes potentially lower latency seems exploitative (albeit no doubt wildly profitable).

If NN objects to their service being used to further entrench that future, then being opposed to working with customers who want to do flat-rate passthrough pricing seems defensible and consistent.

(Regarding your comment on the status quo, I completely agree.)

Post reply on HN